Armenia's Diaspora Problem

The Armenian Diaspora faces a conundrums in the US, France, Canada, Australia, etc. Issues pertinent to the diaspora’s locality often take precedence over the homeland. Not to mention, cultural, linguistic, and even time zones fracture a united Armenian identity. These are some of the reasons why we have watched intra-political squabbles within the diaspora and friction vis-a-vis Yerevan. Yet amongst the obstacles, one issue has united the Armenian world: advocation for the Recognition of the Genocide.

One can argue that this endeavor has robustly succeeded as most of the West, Russia and the rest of the Christian world are aware of the Great Crime. In 2015, Pope Francis angered the Turkish world over his comment, “the first genocide of the 20th century.” In 2016, two of the world’s most popular actors portrayed the suffering in a wide release film. Despite mixed reviews, one of Hollywood a Las Vegas’ most powerful executives, Armenian-American Kirk Krikorian, funded all of it. Then in 2019 and 2021 each chamber of Congress and the White House recognized the Genocide.

So what to do now? While the Armenian Genocide recognition campaign is a righteous, noble and paramount, the current security of the Armenian homeland still remains in jeopardy. It seems everyone but the Turkish aligned world has recognized the Genocide, meanwhile, we are now well past one year following the Artsakh Ethnic Cleansing. Nearly 120,000 will not return to their homes any time soon as there is near-zero chance Baku will allow the indigenous exiled people to repatriate while they continue to demolish Stepanakert. Moreover, if Yerevan and Ankara normalize relations, it will likely not include Turkish recognition, apologies, and reparations. Turkish President Erdogan and Hakan Fidan, the Foreign Minister, former Intelligence chief and possible successor, will almost certainly not be laying flowers at the Memorial in Tsitsernakaberd.

The diaspora must embrace a new future which can be universally applicable and focus on pragmatic solutions for the security and prosperity of the homeland. There are three opportunities to examine.

The first is an informational strategy to emphasize the Artsakh ethnic cleansing as a humanitarian catastrophe over a geopolitical failure. Granted, many diaspora groups embrace this concept but sometimes the arguments may confuse the audience that acceptance of the Republic of Artsakh’s legitimacy is a prerequisite for accepting that ethnic cleansing occurred. Baku uses the same arguments as an Armenian Genocide denier and frames its arguments within a geopolitical perspective. US Army Veteran and scholar Rich Outzen in 2014 criticized the Armenian Genocide denier Erikson J. Edwards’ Ottoman history book, writing that Edwards falsely mischaracterized Ottoman-Armenians as an insurgent group despite their loyalty to the Empire. Therefore, Baku campaigns in the same manner by calling the Artsakh people terrorists. This is important because this message of terrorist implies the indigenous people of Artsakh are insurgents and have always been part of Azerbaijan. However, this could not be possible throughout history because the Armenians have lived in Artsakh for over two millennia.

The Artsakh Ethnic Cleansing recognition campaign should acknowledge threefold:

(1) the people of Artsakh have been and always were indigenous to the region,
(2) they accepted democracy during the collapse of the Soviet Union through a referendum, which should have been praised but was largely ignored by the free world, and

(3) the Artsakh people were the antithesis to Soviet Union’s precedent of ethnic cleansing. As Joseph Stalin constantly redrew internal borders, scholars agree this was a primary driver of internally displaced groups including Jews and Muslims.

The second opportunity for the diaspora calls for a change in lobbying strategy to primarily focus on American private sector military industry (also called the “military industrial complex”),

The private defense industry is swimming with cash through record revenues. They will probably look to use more of this money for investments and market growth. State bodies throughout the West failed to stop Artsakh’s fall while at the same time rewarded mega million-dollar defense contracts. It is long past time to engage the private sector, which has its own native lobbying groups with successful records of Congressional approval for US-foreign defense engagement opportunities. Tangible examples have been made previously from space to weapons procurement.

Third, Armenian nation and diaspora are largely advanced in relation to STEM and computer skills. There are already projects to send diaspora students abroad to learn about their heritage. There are also projects to formally connect Armenians across national borders. Therefore, diaspora organizations should consider jointly creating a database of students and young professionals who are seeking work opportunities. The HyeID project to form the diaspora Armenian Parliament, led by Harut Sassounian, presents a great opportunity to build such a database and social networking platform of skilled Armenians globally. Appropriate diaspora groups could operate with this information such as a connection between a talented computer engineer in Glendale, California to an office in Yerevan which could drastically benefit each of the diaspora and homeland.

Recent Armenian diaspora college graduates who may be looking to boost their resumes in a competitive job market could live in Armenia for one year working in fields as wide ranging from nursing to engineering, etc., while diaspora organizations could also organize and even pay for domicile with a host family. In their first year out of university, a diasporan may only be qualified to work a part time job or internship if he or she is lucky. However, a one-year work-study program would serve as an incredible experience for cultural, linguistic and leadership to boost a resume and stand out in the diasporan’s desired job market. The tangible experience would also benefit on a macroscale as the diaspora and Armenia proper grow apart as time further separates the two. Not to mention, it may also minimize the “theme park effect” where a diasporan tours the homeland for a week or two, only to return to their place of birth without the daily experience of every-day Armenian life.

The diaspora has now existed for 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, 45 years since the Iranian Revolution and nearly 110 years since the Genocide. It should be obvious to conclude that something must continue to tie the diaspora and the homeland as time forges them separate and distinct. The Armenian Genocide recognition campaign has been tremendously successful yet focus in other more pertinent fields can open the doors beyond imagination.